With number of preexposures constant latent inhibition increases with preexposure CS duration or total CS exposure

Albert, Melody; Ayres, John J. B.

doi:10.1016/0023-9690(89)90009-x

Cited by 20 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, in both the Lantz (1973) and the Schnur and Lubow (1976) studies the preexposure and conditioning treatments occurred in one single session, whereas our procedure was distributed across multiple days. Moreover, total exposure to the CS, which has proven to be a critical variable determining the magnitude of latent inhibition (e.g., Albert & Ayres, 1989;Ayres et al, 1992), was much lower in these other studies than in Experiment 1. dence that the change in session duration does not adequately account for the attenuated latent inhibition observed in Experiment 1. Alternatively, animals could have slept through most of the long preexposure sessions, thereby not experiencing the preexposure trials as scheduled.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 64%

Latent inhibition and contextual associations.

Escobar

Arcediano

Miller

2002

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Attenuated responding to a conditioned stimulus (CS) after preexposure to that CS (latent inhibition) has traditionally been attributed to reductions in CS associability. Alternatively, CS-context associations formed during CS preexposure later interfere with the acquisition or expression of CS-outcome associations. Three lick suppression experiments with rats contrasted these accounts. Presumably, exposure to the context attenuates the CS-context association without altering CS associability. With a fixed amount of CS preexposure, latent inhibition decreased with increasing context exposure during or after (but not before) CS preexposure. When the ratio of context preexposure duration to CS preexposure was fixed, latent inhibition increased with CS preexposure. These results suggest that latent inhibition is a direct function of the strength of CS-context associations formed during preexposure.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 64%

Latent inhibition and contextual associations.

Escobar

Arcediano

Miller

2002

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…3a). Since the extent of preexposure is known to affect latent inhibition (Albert and Ayres 1989;Ayres et al 1992;De la Casa et al 1993a), the determ ination of latent inhibition in the present experiment could be con founded by the amphetamine induced reduction in the amount of preexposure. In order properly to assess the role of the nucleus accumbens in latent inhibition, an additional experiment was performed in which the liq uid intake during preexposure and conditioning was restricted.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 66%

The role of mesolimbic and nigrostriatal dopamine in latent inhibition as measured with the conditioned taste aversion paradigm

Ellenbroek¹,

Knobbout²,

Cools³

1997

Psychopharmacology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Repeatedly presenting a non-reinforced stim ulus normally retards conditioning to this stimulus when it is coupled to a reinforcer. This phenomenon is called latent inhibition. Since latent inhibition is disturbed after systemic administration of am pheta mine, the present study investigated the role of the mesolimbic and nigrostriatal dopamine terminal fields in latent inhibition using a conditioned taste aversion (CTA) paradigm. In this paradigm, a 5% sucrose solution was used as the test stimulus and lithium chloride (LiCl) as the CTA inducing drug. The degree of CTA was assessed by measuring the sucrose prefer ence in a two-bottle sucrose/water choice paradigm 24 h after the LiCl injection. Since conditioned taste aversion has so far not been used to evaluate the role of dopamine in latent inhibition, we first studied the effects of systemic application of amphetamine. The results show that intraperitoneal injections of 0.25 or 0.5 mg /leg ¿/-amphetamine sulphate (given at preexposure and conditioning) significantly disrupted latent inhibition, by selectively reducing sucrose preference in the preexposed group. This could not be attributed to a reduced sucrose intake during preex posure or to a conditioned taste aversion effect of am phetamine itself, In experiment 2 local bilateral administration of 10 |xg/0.5 jil amphetamine into the nucleus accumbens or the dorsal striatum was given in the pre-exposed and the conditioning phase, after which the rats were allowed to drink for a fixed period of time. The results show a significant reduction in latent inhibition after intrastriatal, but not after intra-accumbens injections of amphetamine. Intraaccumbens injections of amphetamine, however, significantly reduced fluid intake during preexposure and conditioning. In experiment 3, we therefore repeated this experiment, but allowed the animals to drink only a restricted am o u n t of liquid during preex posure and conditioning. Again the results show a dis ruption of latent inhibition after intrastriatal, but not intra-accumbens injections of amphetamine. These experiments emphasize the importance of the nigro striatal dopamine system in the disruption of latent inhibition, at least when using the conditioned taste aversion paradigm. A possible mechanism by which the dorsal striatum m ight influence latent inhibition is discussed.

show abstract

“…This wellestablished phenomenon, termed latent inhibition (LI), has appeared across a wide range of CSs, USs, and proeedures (Albert & Ayres, 1989;Elkins, 1973;Lubow, Markman, & Allen, 1968;Lubow & Moore, 1959;Reiss & Wagner, 1972). A variety oftheoretical proposals have been proffered to explain LI (DeVietti et al, 1987;Kalat, 1977;Lubow, Schnur, & Rifkin, 1976;Mackintosh, 1975;Pearee & Hall, 1980;Wagner, 1981).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Release from latent inhibition with delayed testing

Kraemer

Randall

Carbary

1991

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A conditioned emotional response procedure was used to study the interactive effects of stimulus preexposure and retention interval in rats. In Experiment 1, the subjects were conditioned by presenting a light CS paired with mild footshock as the USo Half of the subjects were given nonreinforced preexposure to the CS, and the others were not. Separate preexposed and nonpreexposed groups were then tested 1, 7, or 21 days after conditioning. Suppression of ongoing activity was used to assess the degree of conditioned fear. Latent inhibition was found at the J-day retention interval; the preexposed subjects displayed less conditioned fear than did the nonpreexposed subjects. In contrast, equally streng conditioned fear was expressed by the preexposed and the nonpreexposed groups tested after the 7-and the 21-day retention intervals. These results indicate arelease from latent inhibition similar to that obtained with conditioned taste aversions (Kraemer & Roberts, 1984). The results ofExperiment 2 suggest that retention-interval-induced increases in sensitization, pseudoconditioning, or neophobia cannot account for the release from latent inhibition effect obtained in Experiment 1. The implications ofthese findings for a retrievaloriented view of latent inhibition are discussed.

show abstract

With number of preexposures constant latent inhibition increases with preexposure CS duration or total CS exposure

Cited by 20 publications

References 41 publications

Latent inhibition and contextual associations.

Latent inhibition and contextual associations.

The role of mesolimbic and nigrostriatal dopamine in latent inhibition as measured with the conditioned taste aversion paradigm

Release from latent inhibition with delayed testing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About